Legal Opinion

Andrew Jergens Co. v. Bonded Products Corporation

District Court, E.D. New York

Decided May 26, 1926PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

INCH, District Judge.

This is a suit in equity. Plaintiff by bill and supplemental bill seeks to restrain defendant from, unfairly competing with plaintiff by the alleged misuse of the name “Woodbury” upon toilet soap and the alleged imitation of the plaintiff’s wrappers,, etc. The defendant duly answered and the issues have been duly tried.

Plaintiff is an Ohio corporation, and is the successor to a partnership, Andrew Jergens & Co. (all of Cincinnati, Ohio). The defendant is-a corporation organized‘and existing under the laws of the state of New York, with its office in Brooklyn, Eastern…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Hanover Star Milling Co. v. MetcalfSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  2. United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
  3. Singer Manufacturing Co. v. June Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896
  4. Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1900
  5. Howe Scale Co. v. Wyckoff, Seamans & BenedictSupreme Court of the United States · 1905

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. E. F. Prichard Co. v. Consumers Brewing Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1943
  2. Securities and Exchange Commission v. LawsonDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1938
  3. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Plymouth Rubber Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1959
  4. Ampey v. ThorntonDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1946
  5. John H. Woodbury, Inc. v. William A. Woodbury Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1938

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API